Written Answers Thursday 31 March 2005

Scottish Executive

Freedom of Information

Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether confidential information has been, or is being, shredded by it or any Executive agency in order to avoid disclosure under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and, if so, why.

Mr Tom McCabe: No. It would be wholly unacceptable for information to be destroyed simply to avoid disclosure under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act or in any other way to evade the obligations of accountability or transparency.

  Around 98% of records held by the Scottish Executive and its agencies are destroyed in regular file reviews as laid down in records management guidance. Such guidance is generally subject to approval by the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, and is made available to staff and on the Executive’s and many agencies’ websites. Records are retained so long as they serve one or more of three broad purposes: because they are of immediate business use; because they must be kept in compliance with law or regulation; or, for a very small proportion, because they are expected to be of historical value to future generations, including historians. It is not the practice of the Executive or of any agency, and in some cases would be against the law, to destroy information, confidential or not, for any other reason than that it has reached the end of its life according to these criteria. Information is thus being destroyed all the time, but not for the reasons supposed in the question.

Justice

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how persistent offenders who have previously been offered fiscal fines are identified.

Elish Angiolini QC: A record of previous fiscal fines offered to an offender is available in the standard information obtained from the Scottish Criminal Records Office for each case. This information is available to procurators fiscal at initial case processing stage and will be taken into account when deciding on the most appropriate action in relation to the reported offence.

Justice

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive in what circumstances a persistent offender would appear in court rather than receive an offer of a fiscal fine.

Elish Angiolini QC: If there is sufficient evidence of a crime being committed by an accused person, the prosecutor must consider what action is in the public interest. Assessment of the public interest involves careful consideration of a number of factors including the seriousness of the offence, the interests of the victim and other witnesses, factors relating to the accused (such as age and previous record), as well as local community interests or general public opinion. The public interest is more likely to require prosecution where the accused has a significant history of recent offending particularly where this includes convictions for similar crimes.

  Under section 302 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, procurators fiscal are authorised to issue conditional offers of a fixed penalty (a "fiscal fine") as an alternative to prosecution in relation to any offence in respect of which an alleged offender could competently be tried before a district court. Confidential guidance has been issued to procurators fiscal regarding their use of fiscal fines as an alternative to prosecution, which includes directions as to the circumstances in which procurators fiscal must not issue a fiscal fine. These include cases involving overtones of sexual behaviour or racial motivation or aggravation and cases involving the possession of Class A drugs.

Ministerial Correspondence

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-14923 by Ms Margaret Curran on 10 March 2005, whether it will publish the percentage of replies to ministerial correspondence issued in 20 working days, broken down by minister.

Ms Margaret Curran: The information for correspondence received in the month of January 2005 is contained in the table:

  

Minister
Percentage of Replies Issued in 20 Working Days


Rhona Brankin
88%


Malcolm Chisholm
86%


Margaret Curran
 0%*


Patricia Ferguson
60%


Ross Finnie
93%


Hugh Henry
82%


Cathy Jamieson
87%


Andy Kerr
92%


Johann Lamont
72%


Lewis Macdonald
53%


Tom McCabe
85%


Jack McConnell
48%


Peter Peacock
91%


Euan Robson
84%


Tavish Scott
86%


Nicol Stephen
51%


Jim Wallace
69%


Allan Wilson
83%


Total
73%



  Notes: *Refers to one case.